The next hearing is set for July 21. That’s nearly four years after Pinero -- acting as ancillary administratrix of her mother's estate -- sued her half-sister over family property, and almost three years after a judge first voided Jones-Richmond’s claims on that property and returned it to the estate. More than two years have passed since a second judge found Jones-Richmond guilty of constructive fraud and first ordered she pay damages.

In March 2013, after months of court-ordered hearings with a mediator to determine damages owed, a third judge ordered Jones-Richmond pay $312,000 in the case.

The court file now counts thousands of pages with dozens upon dozens of motions, countermotions and new claims. Each month, new wrinkles emerge and must be addressed.

So, when is a civil court case over? When is a judgment final?

If you represent yourself and are persistent enough, maybe never.

Just this past Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens of Wake County issued a summary judgment in a related case against Dennis Richmond, Jones-Richmond’s husband, for $46,850. Stephens is at least the ninth judge to sit on the case.

Judge Michael Morgan of Wake County will make 10 when he arrives in Alamance County Civil Superior Court on July 21.

THE CASE SET its roots back in 1996, when Jones-Richmond’s aunt, Marian Leath Smith, died. Jones-Richmond was administratrix of her estate, which included properties shared by Smith’s three siblings. In 1997, one of those siblings, Lydia Lucille Leath, granted Jones-Richmond power of attorney over her interests. In 2000, Jones-Richmond conveyed to herself partial interest two Burlington residences on Day Street and a tract of land in Greensboro.

When Flora Jones — Pinero and Jones-Richmond’s mother, and a sister of Smith and Leath — died in 2008, the settlement of that estate spawned this case. Pinero and another sibling argued they owned their mother’s share of the properties. Jones-Richmond committed fraud and constructive fraud, claiming control of the property and taking in rent on that property without disclosing it to the heirs, the October 2010 complaint states.

Jones-Richmond fired back.

“Plaintiff’s motives are that of an enemy in that her mission is to steal my interest in the property, kill my grandmother’s dream and intention of passing these properties down through the generations, and destroy the legacy by selling the property,” Jones-Richmond said in a response and counterclaim

Though Jones-Richmond has sometimes been represented by attorney James E. Tanner III, for the most part, she’s appeared pro se — representing herself.

â–ª In November 2011, Superior Court Judge Elaine Bushfan of Durham County denied several of Jones-RichmondÂ’s motions and voided Jones-RichmondÂ’s deeds on the properties.

Page 2 of 3 - â–ª On April 2, 2012, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning of Wake County issued a summary judgment finding Jones-Richmond guilty of constructive fraud. He found Jones-RichmondÂ’s motions Â“without meritÂ” and dismissed them. He also declined to hear a motion asking for reconsideration of Bushfan's ruling and found there was no statute allowing "reconsideration." Manning sent the case to referee Robert Hassell to determine damages, or, in his words, to Â“unravel this multiyear GordianÂ’s knot of bookkeeping and expense claims.Â”

â–ª Hassell worked nearly a year on the case, taking evidence from both sides. Jones-Richmond claimed she spent more than $100,000 in maintenance on the properties, one of which has fallen into uninhabitable disrepair, court documents state. She allegedly paid her husband around $50,000 to mow the lawns. Court documents show claims for 60 payments to him between April 2003 and July 2011, ranging from $75 a month to as much as $1,200 a month.

Hassell found Jones-Richmond took in $55,000 in rental fees on one Day Street property.

â–ª On March 28, 2013, Superior Court Judge James Hardin of Durham County issued a Â“final orderÂ” in the case, tallying legal expenses, damages owed and other costs at more than $300,000.

â–ª It wasnÂ’t final. In May 2013, Pinero filed motions to compel Jones-Richmond to pay. On June 3, 2013, Alamance County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Rob Johnson found Jones-Richmond had the ability to pay at least $350 a month and ordered her to do so.

“The court finds that a large measure of the legal expenses and costs in this case are due to the extended amount of pro se litigation for which the defendant must bear responsibility,” Johnson wrote in his order.

â–ª On Feb. 7, plaintiff attorney Samuel Pinero, the son of Kathy Laverne Pinero, motioned for a judge to file a gatekeeper order, restraining Jones-Richmond from filing motions without an attorney or prior approval of the court.

â–ª An affidavit dated Feb. 18 by Samuel Pinero lists repetitive, Â“frivolousÂ” and Â“untimelyÂ” motions Jones-Richmond has made in the case: 24 hearings on nine separate court dates. They are for motions to dismiss based on statutes of limitations, motions to dismiss based on failure to join other parties, and motions to modify or appeal judgments.

THE CASE BURNS hot.

In January, Samuel Pinero went to Superior Court Judge Wayne Abernathy, who granted ex parte orders freezing Jones-Richmond’s bank accounts. Ex parte orders are made with only one party present. Pinero told the judge Jones-Richmond was hiding or disposing of property to keep from paying on the judgment.

On Feb. 3, Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner of Wake County struck those ex parte orders, requiring Pinero to schedule a hearing so Jones-Richmond could be heard as soon as possible after her accounts were frozen. Gessner noted that Jones-Richmond hadn’t made property available to the plaintiff or the Alamance County Sheriff’s Department, and had “willfully refused to surrender property despite a Writ of Execution.”

Page 3 of 3 - Gessner ordered Jones-Richmond to produce all her bank records and tax returns, and to allow inspection of her home and property.

On June 2, Abernathy again issued ex parte orders freezing Jones-Richmond’s accounts. A hearing was set for June 23.

Jones-Richmond filed to have Abernathy recuse himself for alleged violations of her right to due process. According to court documents, Jones-Richmond told the judge, “I don’t believe that you can be impartial in this case. Although I sat through a couple of hearings with you and you (seem) to be fine. But I’m just leery. I’m leery about the whole court system at this point. I just don’t feel like I’ve had a fair trial because I’m a pro se litigant.”

She argued June 23 that judges improperly filed orders against her and declined to hear her case, instead ruling arbitrarily for Pinero.

“The horse has left the barn,” Abernathy said, explaining he couldn’t retry the case.

Jones-Richmond said she didn’t feel he was qualified to hear it, the judge admonished her.

“The problem I have with certain pro se people is that they don’t know how to get to the point and resolve issues,” Abernathy states in the draft transcript. “Let the record reflect that the defendant continues to interrupt the Court and continues to try to rehash the trial of this case, the summary judgment hearing, continues to try to rehash the referee’s findings, and continues to try to disagree with Judge Manning’s decision, and just cannot accept the prior decisions of the Court.”

Abernathy found she hadn’t given reason for him to recuse himself, but he recused himself anyway “to avoid any appearance of impropriety.”

He mentioned that the next judge on the case might be Bushfan.

“I would like to recuse Judge Bushfan as well,” Jones-Richmond said, “because she’s not been fair.”

Morgan will preside over an all-motions hearing July 21.

On Feb. 25, Jones-Richmond filed a notice of appeal to the N.C. Court of Appeals.